lostodysseyfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Rings
The page has lots of good info, but it looks very cluttered. I'd suggest displaying the info as a table like has been done on pages such as Skills, Spells, etc. Thoughts? JoePlay (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) :I think a single table that tries to contain all the info on every ring will become very large and won't display very well on smaller sized screens. Some of the more complex rings contain up to three effects and require three components to craft. Instead of trying to contain info on every ring on this page it might be better to link to individual ring pages where more detail can be contained without cluttering this page.Marco0009 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC) The reason I did it like this is because I've simply never edited a wiki before and have no clue how to make a table. I believe individual pages for each ring would be impractical due to...having a page for over 100 rings. On the other hand, though, if multiple effects for each ring (Water Ring, Water Ring Ultra, Water Ring XYZ) were on the same page it could make sense. Thassodar 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) :Thassodar - no worries about the original layout. It wasn't that long ago that I was a wiki newbie too. =) You put the information on the page, and that's the most important part - having the info. Regarding which way to display this rather large amount of info, you both have good points. I do agree that having a separate page for every ring is probably unnecessary. I think I'll make a test page and see if I can come up with a way to display the info on one page without it being cluttered. Once I do, I'll put a link to the test page here so we can all discuss and tweak it. JoePlay (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ::OK, I just finished the first draft of a possible new Rings table. Check it out at User:JoePlay/Rings. How's that look to you guys? You can edit it yourselves to try out anything you think might improve it. For example, I was thinking about putting all the ring names in bold just to make them stand out a bit. Suggestions/feedback is welcome. Oh, one other thing... if "Type" isn't the best label for the second column, go ahead and change it. I'm not playing the game, so I was just making my best guess there. JoePlay (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Looks awesome. The only thing I'm concerned about is when I want to add new rings to the table, but I suppose I'll figure it out. Types is alright, but until I can think of a better term I'll leave it. Good stuff. Thassodar 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC) :Each time you see |- BGCOLOR="#E3E6FF" in the code, that's the start of a new row (for a ring) followed by 4 vertical lines "|" (one for each column (eg. name, type, desc, comp)), so when you want to add a new ring, what I do is copy/paste |- BGCOLOR="#E3E6FF" and the 4 lines of code after that. Then replace the info to match the info for the new ring I'm adding ... if that makes sense. :So anyway, still waiting for more feedback about the test page. If everyone would like to start using it, just let me know and I'll move it to the Rings page. JoePlay (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ::Looks good. My concerns about being unable to cleanly display the multiple types appear to be a non-issue. I'll go through and add the rings I know about after the table's added and divide the tables based on how the game filters ring types. :::Cool... I'll go ahead and move the table here to the Rings page then. JoePlay (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)